Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.
There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.
Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).
Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.
Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.
I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.
But do I WORSHIP them?
No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.
I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.
There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?
I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.
Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.
In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.
At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.
Every RC and every Protty has their own personal interpretation of Scripture
REGARDLESS
of what the
RC magicsterical has to say
and
REGARDLESS
of what the
PROTTY magicstericals have to say.
That’s the nature of being human.
There is not any 100% identical transmission of understanding, values, beliefs, perspective, interpretation between anyone short of some miracle of God or manipulation of brainwaves by some exhotic technology—which would stop when the technology was withdrawn.
I do not believe the RC notion of what YOPIOS means and equals fits my experience as a Protty any more than RC’s think some of our descriptions of what venerating Mary means to RC’s.
However, I am keenly aware that evidently quite a number of RC’s are utterly 100% convinced that
THEY have a 100% accurate, true, applicable
understanding of Prottys and Protty’s YOPIOS
while they see Prottys as having a 0.000000000% understanding of RC’s and Mary veneraton/worship.
Cute that.
The RC DOUBLE STANDARD DOGMA strikes again.
Thank you.
Your vote of confidence in my mental and emotional health is very touching.
/s
Faith alone is not condemned. Scripture alone is. It is because it does NOT call for "Scripture Alone" anywhere in the Bible.
I’m a strong believer in honor to whom honor is due.
. . . to a point . . . LOL.
Unless they’ve come from Mexico, Philippines . . . and other such places.
On the whole I don’t think of you as thin-skinned or brittle.
And I trust God to show where any such may be of concern to Him to any particle of a degree in any particle of an area.
I personally don’t need to see such a dialogue as a
zero-sum anything.
I believe the latin is Sola Fide.
Scripture alone is.
Let me ask you what you believe we mean by Sola Scriptura. Why do you think your Church condemns it?
>>Did you also notice that Scripture is silent concerning Mary after the Ressurection?<<
Acts 1:14
She didn’t disappear!
Council of Trent — which makes faith and good works co-ordinate sources of justification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification.
It took a little digging, but I got this from New Advent. If works are critical or as it states "co-ordinate" it is not Sola Fide, or Faith Alone.
The chruch doesn’t actually condemn Sola Scriptura, I don’t think they go around condemning things, they simply don’t agree and provide guidance. There is nothing in the bible that says we should only believe stricly what is written in the Bible alone.
I think this might be where RC's get off track about Sola Scriptura. There are two understandings of the term.
First, that all that is necessary to come to Faith in Jesus Christ is contained in Scripture. Second, that no doctrine, dogma, religious practice should be followed if it is not clearly found to be supported in Scripture. It is the second definition that has caused all the angst because it supersedes any claimed authority of any body of clerics.
Unlike what some of you believe, we study the bible, rarely the Cathechism - unfortunately.
Yet sola scriptura is a doctrine, dogma or religious practice that is not clearly found to be supported in Scripture.
The irony is blinding.
...in favor of the claimed authority of a body of iconoclasts.
Yes, but that can happen at any time, even at the time of death.
Second, that no doctrine, dogma, religious practice should be followed if it is not clearly found to be supported in Scripture. It is the second definition that has caused all the angst because it supersedes any claimed authority of any body of clerics.
Where is that in the bible??????
Some of us see that
clearly
rather differently.
Some of us are curious . . .
are iconoclasts ranked
higher
or lower
than Brothers and Sisters in Christ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.